Is a 3 hour marathon impressive to you for a man under 40?

Greg wrote:

No.

2:40 or better is impressive.

2:20 very impressive

sub 2:20 is national class

sub 2:10 Olympic caliber

Okay, Greg. 🙄 What is your Marathon PR?

You are wrong, Greg.

You know what is impressive?

Actually training and running a marathon to one's potential (according to one's life conditions).

You know what else is impressive?

Not coming on an online forum to shyt on others like you do.

The guy who ran a 3:07 is more than a million times better marathoner than you are.

Film Rep wrote:

Greg wrote:

No.

2:40 or better is impressive.

2:20 very impressive

sub 2:20 is national class

sub 2:10 Olympic caliber

Okay, Greg. 🙄 What is your Marathon PR?

My 8k/10 mile times (which are reasonable predictors and fair comparisons for someone who hasn't run one) line up for something in the mid to low 2:40s, with potential to run sub 2:40.

That's why 3 hours isn't impressive to me.

For a 3 hour marathoner who's maybe run 30 minutes for 8k (which is about 4 minutes off my best) to tell me I wouldn't have beaten their time is absurd.

4 minutes in an 8k is a lifetime.

5577 wrote:

You are wrong, Greg.

You know what else is impressive?

Not coming on an online forum to shyt on others like you do.

No, I am correct. You aren't in a position to tell me I can't have an opinion.

I didn't *shyt (your words, I don't use foul language) on anyone.

That's how YOU look at it.

If the 3hour + marathoner is offended that I am not impressed by their time, all they have to do is run in the 2:40s or better and I'd be moderately impressed.

That's all. Simple.

Are you still going on about this ,seriously fella shut up or get a life,as your current one is in an extremely bad way.

Greg wrote:

No.

2:40 or better is impressive.

2:20 very impressive

sub 2:20 is national class

sub 2:10 Olympic caliber

Do you have a rating for "too physically and mentally weak to run a marathon at all"?

reply wrote:

Greg wrote:

No.

2:40 or better is impressive.

2:20 very impressive

sub 2:20 is national class

sub 2:10 Olympic caliber

Do you have a rating for "too physically and mentally weak to run a marathon at all"?

Obviously when I was training more seriously I was fit enough to run a sub 3 hour marathon, lol.

You asked if sub 3 is impressive to us and then proceeded to tell us what you think. Why bother asking the question if you don't care for the answer?

LetsRun is not the place to ask this question because the forum will think everything slower than like 220 for a guy sucks . Plus it depends on the course & conditions that particular day. Generally Sub3 puts you in the category of a fairly serious runner. Also shows some potential in the sport. Beyond that not much probably but still something to be proud of (The average person can’t do a marathon at all and a lot of former ncaa xc/track athletes into their 30s despite being cocky probably can’t come back and pull off a sub three that easily unless they train semi seriously again which with kids and a serious career, weight gain and competing sht they may not have much of any desire to do (and that’s fine)).

Greg wrote:

5577 wrote:

You are wrong, Greg.

You know what else is impressive?

Not coming on an online forum to shyt on others like you do.

No, I am correct. You aren't in a position to tell me I can't have an opinion.

I didn't *shyt (your words, I don't use foul language) on anyone.

That's how YOU look at it.

If the 3hour + marathoner is offended that I am not impressed by their time, all they have to do is run in the 2:40s or better and I'd be moderately impressed.

That's all. Simple.

I am in no position to have an opinion but you are?

Moron.

You don't use foul language? I have a few screenshots of you telling people to f*ck themselves.

Why are you lying?

The 3hour+ marathon runner is probably laughing at you because he lives rent-free in your head, and because he actually goes out and trains with a goal, and competes.

There are those who are afraid to face the ‘Thon, and those who aren’t.

Ed Whitlock wasn’t afraid!

What isn’t impressive is someone who never ran a marathon but brags about what they could’ve done.

the marathon is a mental sport as much as it is physical. not everyone who runs an okay 5k or 10k is just going to be able to run a good marathon at the drop of the hat. some people don't have the guts. As for a good time, i would say something in the 3:07 range tends to turn heads

I’m more impressed with the 3:07 guy than you Greg. Simply because he probably ran that time while actually having a job too. You know, like contributing to society.

Greg wrote:

reply wrote:

Do you have a rating for "too physically and mentally weak to run a marathon at all"?

Obviously when I was training more seriously I was fit enough to run a sub 3 hour marathon, lol.

No, that is not obvious at all. You have shown no ability to put in the work; you are too weak. That means you would most likely fail at the marathon.

If someone ran a 15:30 5k in high school and runs 2:59 at 28 years old, I will not be terribly impressed, but I would still be happy for him if that was his goal and he worked for it.

If someone weighed 260 pounds in high school, with a high body fat percentage, then developed an exercise habit, took up running and ran 2:59 at 28 years old after losing 100 pounds, I would be blown-away impressed.

Life isn't black and white. Learn to enjoy the gray.

Greg wrote:

No.

2:40 or better is impressive.

2:20 very impressive

sub 2:20 is national class

sub 2:10 Olympic caliber

Aeeeeh, what was your Marathon time again Greg?

Please don't talk about things you have not the slightest idea of.